On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:06:05PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:50:54PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:06:55PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 01:43:37PM +0100, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_v. _L=F6wis?= wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you had you own libraries built with gcc 2.95 which now fail due to the upgrade,
> > > > tough luck, just rebuild them. They don't even include gcc 2.95 anymore.
> > >
> > > Are you sure? Are they building the kernel with gcc 3.2?
> >
> > It's not that hard to do :) Current 2.4 kernels are mostly 3.2-ready,
> > and fixing the rest up in a good QA process is reasonable.
>
> It builds, but that doesn't mean that it's correct. The kernel Changes file
> still recommends 2.95.
Yes. It builds out of the box; making it correct to the best of our
testing didn't take us more than a few weeks.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer